18-135 vs 24-105 for Baltics

Using Canon 7D, and prefer to take one lens for a week traveling with family then 10 day cruise to the Baltics. I have an 18-135 IS and am considering getting a 24-105 L IS. Am I giving up too much on either end of the focal length? What is your opinion?

Using Canon 7D, and prefer to take one lens for a week traveling with family then 10 day cruise to the Baltics. I have an 18-135 IS and am considering getting a 24-105 L IS. Am I giving up too much on either end of the focal length? What is your opinion?

I haven't been to the Baltics before, but the question I would ask is... how much foot zoom can you do? If you can foot zoom, take your 24-105 F/4. I assume the 18-135 is a F/3.5 to F/5.6?

I too would opt for the 24-105 f4 L especially if you are taking photos and can handle the price. It's a much higher quality lens in both image and construction quality.

Yes. 3.5 to 5.6.

Can do plenty of foot zoom, non-issue there except on our balcony. :D

Also have 75-300 but don't want to lug that around.

Thanks for the advice.

Yes. 3.5 to 5.6.

 

Can do plenty of foot zoom, non-issue there except on our balcony. :D

 

Also have 75-300 but don't want to lug that around.

 

Thanks for the advice.

Please don't foot zoom on the balcony. :o

If you can.... take your 70-300... you will regret it if you don't.

I assume you'll be going to a lot of museums and churches. If so you want something wide and fast for the inside shots.

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

Exactly my concern: Is the 24 end wide enough and will I regret not having a little bit more width?

Exactly my concern: Is the 24 end wide enough and will I regret not having a little bit more width?

I would be surprised if 24mm isn't wide enough... however I will be happy to admit I am wrong if that is not the case. I wonder if you have a 24-70 f/2.8 handy?

I've never used the 18-135 because it will not fit any of my bodies, I do own a 24-105/4 and a 24-70/2.8. The 24-105 is a fantastic walk around lens even on a 1.6 crop like the 7D. Focus is quick and accurate and will have a much better build quality than the 18-135.

Also in the future if you decide you want to change bodies and get a full frame or a 1.3 crop, the 18-135 will not work.

The 24-105mm lives on my 5DIII, as it did on the 50D and 60D before it. IMHO, if you find 105mm too short, you'd find 135mm lacking, as well. Wide end is different. The difference between 18 and 24 is pronounced when your subject is close. For landscapes, I'd say you're not losing much.

Using Canon 7D, and prefer to take one lens for a week traveling with family then 10 day cruise to the Baltics. I have an 18-135 IS and am considering getting a 24-105 L IS. Am I giving up too much on either end of the focal length? What is your opinion?

We have been to the Baltic several times and I have a Canon T3i with a 70-300 Canon L and a 24- 105 L . If I were to take just 1 lens to the Baltic , it would be my wide angle. You will be shooting mostly indoors so you need a fast lens. Most of the building are tall and or wide and you will not get the big picture with a 24. It works well for close up too.

This is the lens that I was missing before but will use the most in Europe this September. You can get the older version cheaper but the newer one has better coatings.

http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORXEIW/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1371204996&sr=8-8&keywords=tokina+12-24

We have been to the Baltic several times and I have a Canon T3i with a 70-300 Canon L and a 24- 105 L . If I were to take just 1 lens to the Baltic , it would be my wide angle. You will be shooting mostly indoors so you need a fast lens. Most of the building are tall and or wide and you will not get the big picture with a 24. It works well for close up too.

 

 

 

 

This is the lens that I was missing before but will use the most in Europe this September. You can get the older version cheaper but the newer one has better coatings.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORXEIW/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1371204996&sr=8-8&keywords=tokina+12-24

A great lens if you go to the Viking Museum. There is a overlook in there so with the WA you can capture so nice shots

Sent from my iPad

The 15mm range on my EF-S 15-85 (on a T3i) was what I used for most of my photos inside the churches and palaces in St. Petersburg. Also needed that range for the Vasa Museum (note: it's very dim inside), the Viking Ship Museum and the Fram museum.

The 24-105 is a fine lens, but on a 1.6 crop body that is equivalent to a 38mm on a full frame. You might want something wider for interior shots and for the exteriors of Catherine's Palace, Peterhof and the Winter Palace.

Of course, you could also buy a 5D Mark III to go with the 24-105 :D.

It's a wonderful region; have a great cruise.

Thank you for the good advice.

I decided to go with the 24-105. I will let you know how it goes.

I also have a 7D, I have a 24-105 L and find it to be an excellent lens. I have been to the Baltic several times and know you will love it. Don't be afraid to bump your ISO up for some of the interior shots you have pretty good range before you notice noise. The fact that your 7D has a flash will come in handy on those occasions when you are permitted to use it, many of the museums don't allow flash. I had a 50D before with an 18-200 is lens (non L), the sharpness of the L lens is really noticeable. Have a fun trip.

Using Canon 7D, and prefer to take one lens for a week traveling with family then 10 day cruise to the Baltics. I have an 18-135 IS and am considering getting a 24-105 L IS. Am I giving up too much on either end of the focal length? What is your opinion?

This isn't a fair question to ask. Those lenses are in completely different classes.

The 24-105 f/4 L is a top quality lens and you can't replace that with any amount of zoom or width.

The 18-135 although a competent lens, is not of the same pedigree as the "L" line.

My short answer is go with the 24-105. I wouldn't even hesitate to take the higher quality over a very small difference in focal range.

My longer answer, and a little background is...

If you accept the quality difference as acceptable for your needs then I would I say the difference on the long end will not be a problem. Your shooting with a 7D so your resolution will be plenty high enough to crop your picture if you wish it to be closer than you actual focal length will get you. Cropping a picture at that resolution will be more than enough to make up the difference between 105mm and 135mm. Not to mention your 7D sensor is a 1.6x crop so the true value of the 105mm lens is actually 168mm.

The wide end would be were I think your decision actually lies. Do you think you will want wide open landscapes? Or be close to building that you can't back away from and need a wide lens to capture it? You can certainly get wide shots with a 24mm lens on the 7D, but some situations can become challenging. Again, consider that your camera has a 1.6x crop sensor so your 24mm "wide" end is actually 38mm.

I use a 7D as well and at one time (before my 7D) used a 18mm-125mm (I think) lens and loved it! It was not a top quality lens but the quality was acceptable to use as a "walk-around" lens and not need anything else for situations as you are describing. Eventually it died on me, and I was in a different financial position at that point so was upgrading my glass to L quality. Since then I have used the combination of my 7D and 24-105 as my "walk-around" lens and have had very few situations were I wish I had a wider lens.

I have many lenses but never take them all with me. Depending on the situation I choose the ones that fit. On most cruises I bring my 24-105 for daily use and then I also bring my 10-22 for wide interior shots of the ship and if I think I may need it in specific port I will throw it in my backpack just in case...

The only exception I have made on a cruise was on my Alaska cruise. I added the 100-400 to my bag for that trip due to the wild life I was expecting to encounter. It added a lot of weight to my bag, but was absolutely worth it. The shots I was able to get of grizzlies, bald eagles, moose and so on with that lens were absolutely impossible with anything shorter. Wildlife is the only reason I can imagine from a cruising perspective, that anything longer that 105mm is needed.

I'm glad to hear the positive reviews on the 24-105. It arrived yesterday and we leave on Monday. I'll let you know how it goes. Now I hope I don't fill up my Epson P-5000 too quickly, but that's a whole other discussion!

Here is the post-cruise update. I took the 24-105L and am overjoyed with the results. I ended up taking my 75-300IS also, but hardly used it at all. In fact it did not leave the ship and I used it for just a few shots while sailing the Swedish archipelago.

The 24-105L worked fantastic in all lighting conditions and produced excellent results. When I go again, I would take only that lens. It would have been nice to have an additional super wide angle, but really it was not needed. It worked especially well at dusk in Nyhavn (Copenhagen) and in the less-well-lit churches.

Thank you to everyone for your great advice.